Off the Radar: Why Does the National Political Dialogue Ignore the Impact of Long-Term Child Poverty on America's Future?

This post is part of a series on childhood poverty in the United States in partnership with Save the Children and Julianne Moore. Moore leads the organization's Valentine's Day campaign, through which cards are sold to support the fight against poverty. To learn more or to purchase the cards, click here.

How ironic it is that the famously wealthy Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was the first one to raise the issue of "the poor" in the context of this year's presidential election contest. Awkwardly enough, he said that he wasn't "concerned about the very poor" because they had a safety net -- which he vowed to repair if there were defects. Or something to that effect.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just trying to underscore that his first priority was fixing the economy for the middle class. After all, as revealed by his recently released tax returns -- and to his credit -- the former Massachusetts governor is far more charitable than any of his opponents, with the significant exception of President Obama.

Unless I missed something, until the Romney episode last week there was little evidence among the candidates that anyone running for national office cared a whit about the plight of the nation's most impoverished citizens, including the millions of children who are homeless or hungry or attending broken down schools in lousy neighborhoods. Heartbreaking stories are appearing regularly in the national media about more and middle-class families joining the ranks of the homeless, experiencing food insecurity or unable to afford heating oil in New England. And at least 10 million to 20 million children aren't getting regular health care because they lack health insurance or live in severe doctor shortage communities.

Too many people -- including national leaders who should know better -- can't begin to understand what it means to be profoundly poor and the challenges faced by disadvantaged kids who share the same kinds of aspirations that other, more affluent children dream about. Yet the capacity to understand poverty and its consequences for children, families and the nation has little to do with a person's ideology or net worth. The Kennedys and the Shrivers are just two examples of highly affluent families whose empathy and ability to think long-term made them champions of antipoverty efforts.

Today the necessity to address the economic challenges of profound poverty among children could not be more compelling. It is no longer only a matter of compassion and charity. Even the most hardened, empathy-challenged national leader needs to understand that children who don't fulfill their potential, or who lack a feasible path to educational attainment and economic productivity may become serious liabilities with respect to U.S. prosperity -- and influence -- in the decades to come.

For a forthcoming book, I have been speaking with many young people, particularly middle school age, who live in shelters for homeless families in New York City. These kids want to be teachers, nutritionists, lawyers, police officers, and, sometimes (just like my own grandson) professional athletes. Even the budding pro players, though, have "back-up plans" that are indistinguishable from those of their counter-parts in the successful suburbs.

Many among our current crop of aspiring presidents might be shocked to realize how unflustered these kids are about the extraordinary challenges they face. Like all children, they dream their dreams and imagine futures that should be attainable in this nation. They deserve to have the rest of us make certain that access to health care, decent schools and safe neighborhoods are assured for every child in America.

Of course, none of this is meant to say that there isn't a key role for parents in helping their children through whatever adversities exist. Indeed, the presence of caring, protective, inspiring adults in the lives of poor children is essential. What is inexcusable, however, is any candidate for president of the United States who does not present a clear plan to address the growing problem of poverty among far too many of the nation's children.

Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding, what's important is not how charitable an elected official may be in personal values and "giving." What matters is whether or not they possess the wisdom and courage to invest in programs that cost money now, but promise to secure America's prosperity in the decades to come.

 

 

 

Follow Irwin Redlener, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IrwinRedlenerMD

Comments

[Billy Shore]

09:36 AM on 02/09/2012

While we are witness the growth of child poverty to record levels, child hunger has not increased commensurately. One reason is that our public food and nutrition programs work as they were intended to and actually provie the safety net that kids need (although unfortunately, still far too few kids are enrolled in these programs. We can all understand why political leaders avoid talking about programs that don't work. But when the programs do work it is sheer political callousness that prompts some to focus only on the middle class at the expense of all others. Irwin Redliner's long and intimate history with chilren in poverty makes his voice a powerful and necessary one.

[Irwin Redlener, M.D.]

04:52 PM on 02/08/2012

Clearly there are a lot of ideas about what works and what doesn't when it comes strategies designed to eliminate childhood poverty. The truth is, of course, that a single magic bullet doesn't exist and that some combination of a caring, focused adult (especially a parent), plus the charity of individuals and organizations are hugely important. But the scale and depth of poverty in the U.S. require a significant role for government, as well, to make sure that pathways to health care and education, at the least, are unencumbered for every child in America. Twenty-five years ago, Paul Simon, Karen Redlener and I founded the Children's Health Fund which depends on philanthropic generosity to establish health care resources for some of the nation's most disadvantaged children. After supporting comprehensive health care for hundreds of thousand of kids in poor rural and urban communities, it is abundantly clear that every piece of the "puzzle of childhood" needs to be in place. Children raised by caring adults in a safe environment can succeed in school and become productive citizens. But if their ability to learn is impaired by undiagnosed or untreated health challenges, the likelihood of ultimate success can end up derailed. And that's unfortunate for those kids, their families and the rest of us.

[terra33]

09:15 AM on 02/08/2012

Answer the question what brings more people out of poverty, business or charity? The answer is Business. But charities get more people jobs then any government welfare program. Charities teach people to be self reliant. The liberal answer to fight poverty is more welfare but more welfare keeps more people trapped in government dependency. The War on Poverty (started in 1967) has undermined economic progress by trapping people in lives of dependency. If you look at poverty levels from 1950 to 1968 (before the war on poverty big go programs) poverty levels rapidly declined from 30% down to 13%. From 1968 to today poverty levels have barely dropped and have actually increased these past 3 years due to lack of jobs and the recession. My point is if you want to get people out of poverty, the free market must create jobs. The government shouldn't increase dependency on welfare, but instead do everything in its power to allow the free market to work to increase economic growth and create jobs jobs jobs.

[Ashok Hegde]

11:54 PM on 02/07/2012

Any chance to tackle child poverty has to look at the politics of procreation, and the behavior of the parents. If people are irresponsible with procreation, then child poverty will ensue. There's a simple logic to it. People who don't have $5000 saved, or a college degree, or a stable skill are having kids, and those kids will suffer.

People who are raised in upper middle class families grow up secure because their parents took caution before having children.

The issue is responsible procreation, and we don't have a good mechanism to deal with it.

[Imagine 39]

09:52 PM on 02/07/2012

Government does not take from the rich and give to the poor.
Government takes from everyone and gives to everyone.
Some benefit more than others from a good government that tries to do for those that can't do for themselves.
Are we a nation that favors a more economically equal place or one that only dfavors the rich?
Our Country will be weakened by the inbalance of opportunity.
Weakened socially, politically and economically.

[laurieanichols]

08:35 PM on 02/07/2012

We often hear from the GOP that ours is and should be a Christian nation yet you wouldn't know it by the way the GOP sneers at the poor. Our increase of poverty stricken families is not only a result of the 2008 economic meltdown but also, in my opinion, the decreased value of your average workers wages. According to common sense you would think that it would serve our nation's security and economic interests to have our whole population maximize their own unique potential, instead of creating a societal infrastructure that leads to stratification of classes. The poor stay with the poor and the rich stay with the rich. As I have said before, making preschool and kindergarten available to every child, proper breakfast available to all children, tutoring and after school programs given priority and lastly tying minimum wage to inflation. There are so many things that can be done to help lift all the boats instead of leaving millions of boats moored and stuck in the mud. The GOP and Romney is a key example of not having the slightest interest in turning the poverty outcome around he is really interested in cutting the safety nets and increasing the tax cuts for those of his class.

[Jordan53]

08:11 PM on 02/07/2012

As a child raised by upper middle class parents, I was lucky enough to live in a nice house, have nice clothes, as much food as I could want, regular trips to the dentist including braces, doctor visits to the same doctor, lots of books in the house, trips to National Parks, Museums, Disneyland, Theaters, a tutor when I needed one, a warm safe bed to sleep in...contrast that to a child who has no home or moves from apt to apt, has one or no meal a day, no books in the house, no dentist, no doctor, no trips, no feeling of security...how hard must it be for that child to acheive what was handed to me?

[mijjy]

08:40 PM on 02/07/2012

It's getting harder and harder for them every day. I'm also assuming that it will continue so, and that their futures have been hijacked. I've been thinking of them a lot lately, for multiple reasons: having a 4-year old granddaughter is a major cause. Mostly I've been aware that their voices are unrepresented except through their parents; but also how their development, learning, and skills capabilities - not to mention their brain development, which continues 'growing' into the middle 20's - is predicated on good nutrition. Whole lives are negatively obstructed by young-age hunger. The #'s are growing every day, too; this trend has been taking foothold for the last couple of decades, and the real tragedy is the more it grows, and goes on, the bigger the exponential and hidden costs - for them.